Path: csiph.com!news.samoylyk.net!gothmog.csi.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Jakob Haufe Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: django-fsm vs. django-fsm-2: Update or ITP? Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2025 11:40:02 +0200 Message-ID: X-Original-To: debian-python@lists.debian.org X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Thu Apr 3 09:35:34 2025 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.197 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, FOURLA=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, PGPSIGNATURE=-5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate: -4.6 X-Greylist: delayed 575 seconds by postgrey-1.36 at bendel; Thu, 03 Apr 2025 09:35:20 UTC X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.3.1 (GTK 3.24.49; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/K=zNOHBx0l6f6UP8ghjSY3q"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22956 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20250403112529.53f2b4d7@beer Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 65 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Cc: fladi@debian.org X-Original-Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 11:25:29 +0200 X-Original-Message-ID: <20250403112529.53f2b4d7@beer> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:16836 --Sig_/K=zNOHBx0l6f6UP8ghjSY3q Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable (cc'ing fladi as Uploader of django-fsm and django-fsm-admin) Hi, I would like to package django-fsm-2[1] which is a fork/continuation of django-fsm[2] which is already in Debian. However I'm a bit unsure what's the best way forward. Both call themselves "django_fsm" internally, so they can't be co-installed. The only rdep of django-fsm in Debian is python3-django-fsm-admin which seems to be very inactive upstream. AIUI, there are two options: 1. Update src:django-fsm to use django-fsm-2 as new upstream. This might/will make python3-django-fsm-admin uninstallable or broken, I would need to test it. If so, python3-django-fsm-admin will have to be RM'd. 2. Package django-fsm-2 as src:django-fsm-2 and add Conflicts: python3-django-fsm to it, so they won't be co-installed. I think option 2 would be friendlier to possible users out there and also maybe more correct as it will match the name on PyPI. I'm looking for feedback what's the best way forward as I have no experience so far handling PyPI vs. module vs. package name discrepancies. Cheers, sur5r P.S.: Please cc me as I'm not currently subscribed to the list. [1] https://github.com/django-commons/django-fsm-2 [2] https://github.com/viewflow/django-fsm --=20 ceterum censeo microsoftem esse delendam. --Sig_/K=zNOHBx0l6f6UP8ghjSY3q Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEe/X2rDZDH11A3BN6TPKyGPVNrj0FAmfuVAoACgkQTPKyGPVN rj3Kaw//cYgRcWy/39uVxDiuSQXlOCXuES+UaOu8TfFmrrhz3b9uLziv9GVOc87S qD46YltWf9pIoUnmoyMm7FcZVJyOaoiQxuz5nQ4H9NKlj5mrDlaApjxyXszrgX+k Deb97guD3DucgL0Md1P4PF2oQcIw4gJiV3ftIJxCHHlXfb6jEn7sTr62UDAHYxrK NTZmUCsIYiRG9Y02o3rqTJPkv98at7qZtvFZNkhe6xHYMz64j9rUHa+l8mxS17K5 IynJGT4sTUFwJlHfAR/dldhw+2blcc0lRuMgo/wMQugZI/tD7rihWKHBH7B6P5wb Oha+UT+UBElXDNWrmLnZBQ1R51Z1fx8GLgEQXtrZ1HX8iu0SlgdE4VGGzmUAeKdu QFnNNqFO1gb817mXdz8aSNY+oWts60+pMXYVeuWyoVWqQ/VAMsOtCwFjlY2Y2weG 6f02XsQdfE9SRFZayzKNc3Ow7GhVaoaGBccFro67x+Mhf9gqpfC4UGxb6f57OwJ2 yoxYoJNFcm8MQFJ3Mns23j6bzhaLHiqC9FeopHITs2dSaikK0myLXoB/S7SSd27a tlaeDYiqWgxasJjbeHK1TV9qKVwyvWVJtrZLGFeDvAIUqBEaU9RSOFV5SDFf2+GJ 3X8R203jyvSkxRH3TkNXCrbi+6fQRR4Oo6R5HZ4i3k25yx8EwLA= =W7sI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/K=zNOHBx0l6f6UP8ghjSY3q--